Normalize address

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond them: matches can be ambiguous and the tool may return several candidates, which is why the disambiguation filters matter. It doesn't say what happens on zero matches, keeping it below a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what the tool does and returns, the second delivers the disambiguation rule. No filler, nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter, single-required-arg read tool with full schema coverage, the description covers input intent, ambiguity handling, and return content (ids, administrative hierarchy, coordinates). No output schema is needed because the description already states what comes back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining the rationale behind the provincia/departamento/localidad filters rather than just restating them. It adds no new detail on 'max', which the schema already documents.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource (normalize a free-text street address) and spells out the output shape: street id, department, province and coordinates. That forward-geocoding framing inherently distinguishes it from reverse_geocode and from the search_* administrative lookups.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit conditional: pass provincia, and optionally departamento or localidad, to disambiguate because the same street name recurs across cities. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. when to call search_localities first to resolve an id), so it lacks full when-not guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.